Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-13

\ dant reason before six months to regret itI
| passage. The commerce OF the country
| could rot be bound by iron chains. No
unbCndiug rule Of transportation could pro-
mote IT, prosperity. The whole country
would suffer from such unwise legislation.
Mr. Mitchell. Of oregon, criticised tue
report q the Conference Committee for It's
| ombiCuity aud Indebtedness In regard TO
| The most material portions OF the bill. The
/ great body OF people from whom the de-
uand for legislation on this subject came
| did not desire 20 be invited to a feast OF
legislative legerdcmsin. Legislation on
| ibe subject should be certain, specific, ded-
| mite, uuambiguous, and free, In - con-
| Struction. from AL reasonable doubts
/ While there was much int bill that was
/ WISE, reasonable, and Just, and not in
| sny roper sense open % criticism, be felt
| warranted in saving that never IN bis
| experience had he heard so many different
! and strangely contradictory constructions
| placed upon any measure a. those placed
| upon the iOng-aDd-s Orthaul section, and
/ those contradictory constructions bad been
| placed upon II by able constitution, a0d
| statutory lawyers, both in and out o. the
| SCnaio-by IT, friends ~ well as rs foes.
! He very seriously doubted and had al ways
! doubted whether the sbOrt.and-l0ng. haul
| provision would cheaper local iroigbts,
| while, on the other hand. a vital blow
| would be struck by Il At the trans cont.
| mental and through commerce, aud also at
! the foreign commerce Of The country.
In the course o. a cOloquy arising be.
/ tween Mcssrs. Mitchell and George on the
! subject Of The AN section, Mr.. llOar read
| q letter from one Of the House cOnferrees
! ,C1sp) in reply to questions OF his as 20 the
! INTERROGATION which the House cOnierrees
| placed on the lOng.qnd short haul pro.
yiJon-Mr. Crisp speaking only for him
sell, in the absence Of the other two con
ferrcos-Mcssrs. Reagan and Weaver. To
| the first question, as to whether the prohl-
| billion would prevent o common carrier
| receiving q larger sum in proportion Tor
! shorter than for longer period, or Only
that amount 81 the entire freight Tor less
| distance shall not exceed the entire freight
for q greater distance, Mr.. Crisp replied
Il Understand that the 4th section VIII
| prcyCnt a common carrier, within the mean
| Inc Of the act, from receiving larger sum
| I'm The aggregate for the transportation OF
! passengers or property for shorter than
| Tor longer distance over the same line IN
| the same direction. In other words, the
| qinouut Of the entire freight for less dis
lance drcluded in the greater dlstancc)
| shall not exceed the amount to the entire
| freight for the greater distance on a similar
article under similar circumstances
The second question was, " SuppOse
| thousand barrels Of flour be taken from
| Chicago to Boston and be thence conveyed
| to Europe, aud another thousand barrels Of
! lour be taken from Chicago TO Boston or
| Worcester "a point nearer Chicago and on
| the same line. destined for home cOnsump'
| tom, are these substantially similar cir.
ctmstanccS within the moaningoi the bill?
| In other words, does the mere difference
| IN destination Of property create dissimilar
circumstances and condition, contemplated
| IN section Az 10 this question Mr.. Crisp
replies, " In my judgment the difference in
| he case cited would not create dissimilir
circumstances
The third question Ra., "Doe' the eX's'-
Cncc Of competition at the end OF the
Ion ger distance (Nbich does not eXistat the
end Of the shorter on the same line) make
difference OF circum,tauccs and conditions
within tie intention Of the Trainer, Of the
bil?" 70 hi, question Mr.. CRISP replies.
"In my opinion il does not"
Mr.. Mitchell continued his argument
against the bill al great length.
When he bad concluded Mr.. CuIlom
tors who desired to speak on the bill, and
who bad engagements for this evening
lie would not. therefore, ask for vote to-
night. but would do 50 before adjournment
tomorrow.
Mr.. Hams asked unanimous consent 10
have the vote taken tomorrow, but Mr..
Aldrich objected.
MIR. Colquitt presented a petition from
Atlanta. Ga, on the subject Of the inter-
state commerce bill. Ordered 10 be printed.
secret session. Adjourned.
EOuSo Of Representatives.
The Speaker announced the appointment
II MC>ers. skinner. Peli, and Perkins as
confcfrecs on the hill for the allotment OF
land in scytrallY TO Indians.
The door was then, under special order,
accorded 10 the Committee on the judi
ciaIy.
Mr.. Collins, Of Massachusetts,, called up
the dill providing for ~ additional Judge in
the second Judicial circuit Passed.
The House then proceeded TO the con'ide-
ration of the Edmunds anti pOlyCamy bill
and the Tucker substitute therefor
After the reading OF both measures Mr.
Tucker, Of Virginia, stated that he would
permit the debate TO continue for four
hours, TO be divided between The friends
and opponents OF the OH.
Mr.. Bennett. OF North Carolina, one OF
the ,igners Of the minority report, conSid.
CItd the time inadequate. lie would con-
sent TO it because he could not get any
more I'm hi, opinion PORTIONS Of THIS lar
reaching MEASURE WcCc simply atroclouS.
Mr. T.. b. TAYLOR. OF ohio, opened The
/ debate ip >pcechiu favor OF the bill. lie
va, followed i'm order by AlT. Game, OF
] Ia % aTDaeh li IN
/ for HIM TIE applause Of the House.
Nr. Bennett. OF North Carolina, opposed
the bill ulon the ground that it wa, med-
sure oi Injustice 10 hclpc~, people, and
thatit was in part er-poStfdct0 legislation
and i'm conflict with the decisions OF the SUI
pI,ue Count OF the United S,ats, aud in
violation OF the basic principles OF the
American Government, Mr.. Bennett also
objected 10 il because il impOsed test
oath upon all male inhabitants OF Utah.
Me,ss. Reed. OF Maine, and Clswell. Of
Wisconsin, supported the hill, and Mr..
Randolph Tucker, OF Virginia, closed The
debate. He said he was confronted with
the speech delivered by himself four or
five wears ago against the EdmundS anti
uolygmy bill. This was an allu,iont to the
iact that copies Of that speech had been
distributed upon the desks OF members.
lie supposed That this speech had been
brought forward TO cmbarrt>s him, but IL
old not embarIess him. In the iull and
ample consideration hc bad given the Nor
mon question in connection with the pend
inc bin, he had taken into full account the
views expressed 10y him on that occasion.
lie had then uttered no sentiment that was
st all in conflict with the mild and just
provisions OF the pending bill. There
was only one point on which there seemed
10 De a contradiction, and that point bad
been settled by the supreme Court. The
Supreme Count had held that there was
no right Of suffrage by any inhabiiant
Of a Territory, as there was the right OF
suffrage by citizen OF state that aDso-
lutte determination OF The question OF the
government OF the Territories was in the
power Of Congress, subject to the Consti-
luton, and that whether man or woman
should be- allowed TO vote was question
FOR Congress 10 decide. There had never
been question brought TO the attention
OF the committee that had been examined
with more care, and the committee had
come 10 the conclusion that something
must be done IL the United states dld not
desire 10 declare that they were unable to
cope with tie question OF Mormonsm.
Territory OF the United States did not be-
long TO the first little squad OF men who
came and sQuatted upon 1t and said, 1--WE
are mOnarchs OF all ne survey" 1t be-
longed 10 the United states, and II was